Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Haven't seen anything online, even after googling. Wikipedia seems to only list the countries that support the practice, but offers no history.

Why is it that the maiden name is traditionally dropped when a woman is getting married? Is this something that predates back many civilizations ago? Or is this a relatively newfound trend?

I'm actually pretty curious as to why the woman would drop the maiden name.

share|improve this question
2  
Note that keeping your maiden name is keeping your father's family name in Western societies, so it is arguable that keeping your maiden name strikes any blows for maiden-kind. –  Oldcat Jun 24 at 22:46
1  
"Why is it that the maiden name is traditionally dropped" - as opposed to their first name? What are you trying to ask? –  aaa90210 Jun 25 at 22:00
    
@thinlyveiledquestionmark Maybe English is not your first language, but your sentence construction placed emphasis on "maiden name" not "traditionally dropped". If you said "Why is the maiden name traditionally dropped..." it would have been close to what I think you intended. –  aaa90210 Jun 26 at 4:51

4 Answers 4

up vote 27 down vote accepted

Is this something that predates back many civilizations ago? Or is this a relatively newfound trend?

In general, it is a relatively new trend of the last few centuries, and many old cultures have/had no such concept or tradition.

Keep in mind that surnames in many cultures are a relatively new trend. There was no name to drop upon marriage if you didn't have a surname. The Nordic cultures, for instance, historically used patronymic "surnames". These generally would not change. Emma Jonsdóttir does not cease to be Emma, Daughter of Jon upon marrying Erik Eriksson.

Similar practices existed among other peoples such as the Welsh, for example, well into the Early Modern Era. On the other hand, some cultures like Greek would have referred to the married woman as "wife of Erik".

In cultures with longer histories of using surnames, many did not historically expect women drop their surnames at all. In the far east, examples include the Koreans, Japanese or Vietnamese. While some Chinese women added their husbands' surname on top of their own, it is a social use and not a surname change. Most women in recorded Chinese history are in fact identified by their birth surnames only (i.e. my honourable mother <Maiden Surname> from Kiangnan).

The same is also true in the Near East, among Iranians and Arabs. Even in Western Europe, up until the the Early Modern Era, Scottish women of the lowlands did not customarily drop their maiden names. There are also the well known examples of Romance cultures such as the Spanish. Further back, Ancient Roman women did not change their nomen upon marriage, either.

In the English speaking world, dropping the maiden name became standard after surnames became common among the English people; sometime in the 13th and 14th centuries. So no, it did not predate civilisation. In fact, this whole practice is not nearly as common or "traditional" as it might seem. The main cultures to have such a tradition seem to be Anglophone, (Germanic) Western Europe and Slavic ones.

Why is it that the maiden name is traditionally dropped when a woman is getting married?

This is a lot more murky. In the English tradition, it is often said to be rooted in women being quasi-properties of their husbands without a separate legal existence; and that therefore they take their husbands name to mark themselves as extensions of the man of the family. It is difficult to determine the veracity of this claim.

Generally speaking, however, I'm more inclined to argue that the practice of dropping maiden names occur in two situations:

  1. In societies that did not have strong, blood-oriented views of family. So upon marriage, women are seen to have joined a different family, and the husbands' names are adopted in recognition of their new family. In contrast, culture that valued blood lines (e.g. Japanese clans) held on to their own clan names.
  2. Societies that did not have surnames until relatively recent, which overlaps with point 1. Cultures with strong views of family tend to adopt a collective representative name. In those without, surnames tend to come about for identifying otherwise similarly named individuals. It would have been convenient, and would indeed make sense, to identify a wife by her husband's name ("Agnes who married John the smith; not Agnes who married John the carpenter"). Then as surnames became more established, dropping maiden names turned into an ingrained traditional custom.
share|improve this answer
3  
In Rome, the given names for daughters were the father's clan name, feminized. Thus Julia is "the girl from the Julian clan". If you have more than one daughter, they all get the same name, the successors being "little Julia - Julilla" or little third Julia - Julia Tertia". Of course men had it a better, but only a little. A clan branch would have about three given names, and would use them all in the same order, so fathers, grandfather, uncles, grand uncles would have three different names among them all. –  Oldcat Jun 24 at 22:56
2  
@Oldcat But don't forget the cognomen. –  Felix Goldberg Jun 25 at 5:59
2  
Note that the Nordic countries introduced laws requiring inheritable surnames rather than patronymics for everyone very recently -- Denmark in 1828, Sweden in 1901 and Norway in 1923. The nobility and upper classes were using surnames earlier, from 1500s on in Denmark. –  Russell Borogove Jun 25 at 15:11
1  
@FelixGoldberg - The cognomen helped some, but unless you got your own (or a recent relative did) you had the same effect, as it modified the family name, not the personal name. The Julii Caesares had been around for hundreds of years by the end of the Republic and thus had their repetitions of Gaius, say, in that branch. –  Oldcat Jun 25 at 17:35
    
@Oldcat Sure, but every branch had their own cognomen. –  Felix Goldberg Jun 26 at 8:37

The woman does not "drop" her maiden name. If she is a Christian or a Jew, she assumes the name of her husband because in both beliefs the act of marriage joins the two inseparably as one. By ancient law, such as the old Scottish Civil Law, the maiden name is subsumed by name of the house, which is normally the name of the man who owns the house, but in theory BOTH the name of the man and the woman could change, if by the marriage a new house were created. Under old (non-Christian) English law, children and wives and any other dependents assume the name of man because he possesses them and also because he takes responsibility for their actions. For example, if Mistress Neville commits a crime than it is Lord Neville that will be held accountable. Thus, the name creates a legal obligation.

Note also that under English common law only a legal wife can attain the name of man, so a concubine (a woman without license from bishop) by law has to keep her maiden name. Therefore, in the old days, if a woman had a different name than her husband then it was assumed she was a concubine, not legally married. Since most married women did not want to be mistaken for a concubine, they customarily were rigorous in using their husband's name.

share|improve this answer
    
So this is more of a religious background than just cultural beliefs? –  umareica Jun 24 at 20:26
1  
Marriage is traditionally religious. For example, Christians are normally married in churches by ministers. –  Tyler Durden Jun 24 at 20:29
2  
Another reason for assuming a married name was that often this state comes with legal benefits that unmarried women, usually under the aegis of their original family, didn't have. –  Oldcat Jun 24 at 20:47
    
@Oldcat But those benefits derive from the marriage, not the name. –  David Richerby Jun 25 at 11:21
3  
@SteveJessop In pre-conquest times (before 1066) there were 3 main types of law in barbarian england: the Saxon Law, the Mercian Law and the Dane Law. The Mercian and Dane Laws were non-Christian legal customs and codes I was referring to. In both of these codes, women and children were effectively possessions of a man. –  Tyler Durden Jun 25 at 15:25

[Note: I took the thrust of the original question to be about the origin of patrilineal naming conventions, but that is a step removed from what is actually asked. I leave the answer anyway, as I don't feel it is entirely without merit.]

Since you ask the "why", it's worth pointing out that, similar to the wheat and chessboard problem, if neither partner dropped their name, then after fewer than 30 generations it would be impossible for a person to state their full name even once, even if they made it their life's work. 30 generations is about 600-700 years, which is, coincidentally, roughly as long as surnames have been common in Britain. It would only take 10 generations or so for a name to take over an hour to recite.

To avoid this, one or both partners must necessarily reduce the complexity of their own name if they are to incorporate a component of their partner's name, and still produce a heritable surname. Even in cultures that ostensibly keep both names, there must be some trimming of older or less significant ancestors. For example, although Spanish convention retains both surnames, the two grand-maternal surnames are discarded in the following generation, and the maternal grandfather's surname is lost the generation after that.

This leaves only the question of which name to cull and, with some notable exceptions aside, this follows the wider societal pattern.

share|improve this answer
5  
The problem you speak of only appears if the children retain both parents' surnames. That is not directly related to whether the parent kept their original name. In fact, there are many cultures where neither spouse drop their original surname and they have no need for "trimming". –  Semaphore Jun 25 at 6:45
    
Of course, but I would consider the child's choice of names to represent the same fundamental issue. If the child takes no part of either parent's name then there is no true surname anyway. –  imsotiredicantsleep Jun 25 at 6:57
    
Well, children's surnames are an issue of patrilineality or matrilinealiity. Whether to keep maiden name OTOH seems like a distinct issue; various patrilineal cultures have no concept of dropping maiden names even though children definitely take their fathers' surnames. –  Semaphore Jun 25 at 7:39
2  
Fair enough. I took the thrust of the original question to be about the origin of patrilineal naming conventions, but that is perhaps a step removed from what is actually asked. –  imsotiredicantsleep Jun 25 at 7:47
    
You seem to be assuming that either both partners in the marriage take a name made by combining their unmarried surnames and this combined name is inherited by the children, or that the parents don't combine their names but the children's names are combinations of the parents' surnames. These are not the only options. For example, when Mr A-B marries Ms C-D, they could become Mr and Mrs A-C (or any other combination of two names). Or, when Mr X marries Ms Y, they could become Mr and Mrs X-Y but the children inherit one of the names X and Y. –  David Richerby Jun 25 at 11:19

A woman doesn't have to change her maiden name unless she chooses too . It has no value other than letting the world know who you are or were married to . A woman looses her identity the man looses nothing .Once the married name is changed ,a woman has to change her documents .A man could take on his wife's name if he chooses but most don't .With same sex marriages they both have a choice like the rest of the people in the USA ,to keep or change their name too.

share|improve this answer
1  
I'm not sure this answers the question. How common is the custom, and how did it originate? –  Mark C. Wallace Jun 25 at 22:35
1  
This answer should be migrated to Yahoo! Answers. answers.yahoo.com –  Evgeni Sergeev Jun 26 at 23:27

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.